If an interest group supports an extreme policy, advocacy groups can result in polarization through their influences in PACs. On the other hand, because party insiders want to win the elections, they invest in candidates who will be more appealing in general elections--that is it, candidates who will appeal to the median voter (Drutman 1, 2013). This is because most of the voters are moderate. Such an ideology is due to feeling unrelated to conservative or liberal views and, in some instances, not informed enough (Citrin 2015). When moderates do not find policies that appeal to their ideologies, they might even decide not to participate in voting. The large number of moderates makes of these kind of voters the “deciders” (Hankin 1, 2014). If
…show more content…
People who participate in primaries tend to be more extreme since they intensely care about the issues in question (Cookson 1, 2010). These extreme voters have the option to select more extreme policies and candidates, thus when Republicans and Democrats begin the rase, the public is given party candidates with extremely opposite views. This eventually contributes to the country’s polarization. Having in mind that when a voter truly cares about certain issues, a few policies can determine their party identification, by having each party receiving equal federal funding there would be different points of views with similar chances to be taken under account. For example, if there was an voter who strongly approves a certain issue, they would have not only one candidate who they could vote for, but two or more. This can lead them to look into the other policies that each candidate stands for before making a decision. Thus, the voter would have the option to vote for a candidate who is not too extreme and eventually, decrease polarization and make compromise easier. Therefore, giving equal public funding to political parties can decrease polarization among the elites. Moreover, by combining this scenario with the process of informing voters, there would be more chances to help moderates make a choice and to make extremist select candidates who will not polarized Congress as much. For these reasons, regulating campaign funding and informing citizens can be options to softened
People who participate in primaries tend to be more extreme since they intensely care about the issues in question (Cookson 1, 2010). These extreme voters have the option to select more extreme policies and candidates, thus when Republicans and Democrats begin the rase, the public is given party candidates with extremely opposite views. This eventually contributes to the country’s polarization. Having in mind that when a voter truly cares about certain issues, a few policies can determine their party identification, by having each party receiving equal federal funding there would be different points of views with similar chances to be taken under account. For example, if there was an voter who strongly approves a certain issue, they would have not only one candidate who they could vote for, but two or more. This can lead them to look into the other policies that each candidate stands for before making a decision. Thus, the voter would have the option to vote for a candidate who is not too extreme and eventually, decrease polarization and make compromise easier. Therefore, giving equal public funding to political parties can decrease polarization among the elites. Moreover, by combining this scenario with the process of informing voters, there would be more chances to help moderates make a choice and to make extremist select candidates who will not polarized Congress as much. For these reasons, regulating campaign funding and informing citizens can be options to softened